“where is the risk in believing that conversation to make it happen is possible?”
The other issue is if only ‘reasonable’ male trans activists are presented on a panel or in a documentary, people start to think, ‘ok, what is the issue? Why are prople so worried? Why are people saying they are being cancelled?’ It gives an entirely false perception of what has really happened and what the forces on the discussion are like now.
I am not saying don’t have them, I am saying there needs to be acknowledgment, if they are there, of the hostility of the discussion so far.
And if such an individual is there and is the only trans representative, that the woman representing women’s needs is not only very calm, but is experienced in getting their message across quickly and precisely before filling the message out. (Rather than building up to deliver the message, if you know what I mean)
The other danger is that on some issues they come around to ‘ageeeing’, because it is expedient for them to concede as they look to the future. Such as sport. They concede there. But people then believe this ‘reasonable’ male will be an ally in other specificities on women and children’s rights. When they aren’t. They just aren’t abusive, and they listen, then calmly continue on their way.
Just like a person who nods their head along indicating that they have heard you, but not that they agree. But you think they agree and so you haven’t asked the specific question. But they haven’t agreed at all.
In short, a person who appears reasonable superficially as Went does, is very dangerous. It means that people believe the issues are in calm considered hands but when the result comes through, realise they have been sold yet another dud. All because they believed a male person who is deceptively reasonable.